BEYOND "COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS", BENEATH "SELF"

Over many years I felt that Jung's "view of reality," as it were, fell short, that is, was quite incomplete, though, in all fairness, deeper and more complete than most other psychological perspectives. I particularly found that his perspectives on "Eastern" approaches to reality, such as Buddhism and Daoism, even in lieu of the fact that he wrote the Introduction to Wilhelm's I Ching, were lacking, not necessarily in the analytical sense but absolutely in the experiential sense. I wondered how he could even think to comment on the essence of Buddhist meditation, for instance, having never practised it himself, but based on his intellectual "analysis" of it. In my own experience of many, many years of zazen and vipassana meditation, its "essence" is not an intellectual, mental, or even intuitive conclusion whatsoever; rather, it is more of a state of being. I attempted on occassion to articulate this point to my various associates who were followers of Jung and considered themselves to be "Jungians," but I was never articulate enough to convey my point either accurately or successfully, even though I did write a few essays regarding Jung's failure to comprehend or experience the essence of Buddhism or Daoism. I say this in no way to denigrate from Jung's accomplishments in going farther than other Western psychologists in his search for and understanding of the soul.

I recently came across something that may convey somewhat of what I had wanted to convey. David Brazier, in his book, Zen Therapy: Transcending the Sorrow of the Human Mind, is able to capsulize Zen teachings and articulate them quite well. He integrates Zen thinking with many Western psychological approaches quite well.  What follows is germane to my point:

"In Buddhist psychology, the word 'self' is the collective noun for all conditioning. In the west, most psychology is concerned with the level of the mind called 'consciousness' or ego. Most psychology is ego psychology. There are psychologies which try to reach deeper than this and go into the unconscious layer. Then there is what is call 'depth psychology' which attempts to fathom the collective unconscious. Zen is the attempt to go even further than this: (Brazier, 81)

 We have unknown layers, or realms of consciousness within  us. And through meditation,we can perceive how states of  consciousness can be altered ... We begin to realize that 
 we are, in fact, a storehouse for all human history. Jung  termed these deep layers of the psyche as 'the collective  unconscious', and asserted that they were the most  profound parts of our nature. With continuing experiences  in meditation, however, we come to realize that this  theory is not quite right. We can actually penetrate beyond  [though I  would say 'beneath'] the depths of the collective  unconscious of human nature and there come to the  bottomless sea of Buddha-nature. If we go beyond the  collective  unconscious, thereby breaking through the final  barrier of the unconscious layers, we experience true birth  completely anew in the ocean of true emptiness. this is  infinite freedom of no-self, no-mind, no-idea; this is life  itself, completely unconditioned. Here in the infinite no-  mind we find flowers, the moon, our friends and  families,  and all things just as they are; we appreciate our everyday  lives as miracles. But please confirm this for yourself. (Hogen, Y. On the Open Way. Liskeard, Cornwall:Jiko Oasis  Books, 1993)"

Brazier goes on to say, "Even the archetypes of the collective unconscious represent ways of dividing the world of experience. Often enough, the contents of the unconscious are the 'other halves' [a reference to William James's notion of the two 'halves' of 'me' and 'not me'], the split-off parts, of our consciousness which we have repressed. Discovering them can thus be an important step on the road to wholeness. Rather than putting ourselves back together item by item, however, Zen offers the more demanding route of rediscovering the original unity directly through experiences of 'sudden awakening'." (Brazier, Zen Therapy, 83)

In other words, Zen tries to return us to our "primordial nature," or "original awareness," which is a "whole or unified ground of being," rather than being "individually mine/ours." In this respect, "I" do not exist there/here. 

In presenting this perspective, I do not pretend to possess it, though aspects of it have become known to me on occassion. 

"SEEING THROUGH YOURSELF": ANOTHER TAKE

When I first came up with the part of the blog title, SEEING THROUGH YOURSELF, my view was simply one-dimensional: to "see through yourself" is to see through what you believe yourself to be, and thus, see beyond your own little world and your own little mind, as it were. However, there is another meaning that I just realized today while walking in the forest: you also see "by means of" yourself. In other words, it is "yourself" by which, through which, you are able to understand who and what you are. If yourself was not present and involved, you would not possess the means, the vehicle, by which you are understandable to yourself. "You" can't get anywhere without yourself. We need ourselves if we are to be able to "see," to understand. We are our own agents in this process of self-understanding. Yourself provides both the necessary motivation and the required means to self-knowledge. This sounds utterly simplistic but it has immense implications, such as: it is myself who seeks to see who I am, what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it, or thinking, or feeling it. There is no other in this mix; no deity and no corresponding belief system which relegates yourself to a secondary agency in the process. You are "it" for yourself. Eventually we ponder the notion of there being no "you" at all, but in the beginning in particular, there is what you call and believe to be "yourself." In my own estimation you have to "find yourself" before you can "get beyond yourself." Most of us tend to start out "lost" rather than "found," and then may possibly move on to being "neither lost nor found." In my estimation we must first "have a sense of ourself" and move on from there. Socrates said, "To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom."

You may have noticed that I changed the title of this blog from METAPHYSICAL FORCES IN FLUX: WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING? I realized I didn't know didly-squat about "metaphysical forces," much less "metaphysical forces in flux." Dare I say it was more of a "mindflux" primarily upon myself? "Too much irony makes one overwrought." (That being my own quote). So I had to come up with something else that I know nothing about, but may perhaps be less pretentious. As I see it, the new title may be "big", yes, but more of an open challenge to be held and taken on in various ways. I do believe that life is a journey of self-understanding, or at least, of learning what is. This may sound awfully simplistic but I am not so simple, nor do I believe is anyone who may read this.

I write this blog as a possible service to anyone who might seek to understand themselves and/or life itself. The blog is more my "process" of self-understanding or "seeing through myself" than anything else. I have written every day in a journal for many years as something akin to zazen-in-print in addition to sitting at times. There are very, very few readers of this blog, but this is how it is and if someone benefits, I am pleased that I "helped" someone perhaps to approach themselves in some good way. So this blog is my particular connection, worded as it may be, with humanity. I actually have much to say and have said a few things in the past. When I happen to see my older writings, I wonder who wrote them, knowing that I cannot possibly articulate anything that well. Heart speaks clearly; thought obscures.

A NEW LEAF

Life happens, so it is said. It passes; we pass with it. We believe we're "taking it as it is" until it changes abruptly. Only then do we realize that we had no idea "how it is." Only then do we realize how uncertain life is, how uncertain even we are. We believe we "know ourselves," know "who we are," "how we are." But then something happens and we find that we actually know very little, much less "who we are." At such times we may come to a point at which we make conscious choices about "doing what is called for in the moment," or we may just "do it" seemingly instinctively because it is what "must be done." But this generally only happens after we are first devastated by reality, by "what is." Some stay devastated; others get through it. One must certainly "get over oneself" if they are to get through it. But to "get over oneself," one must "get under oneself," which is to say, be able to "see through oneself," to understand how one is, how one lives in a false world of his or her own making.

We are not what we think we are, how we think we are. Rather, we are as we actually are. There is always more to us. We are every step of the journey we take in life, from beginning to end. We are the next step we take. We unfold, unwrinkle, unravel. There is no magic, no miracle, no god, no "way"; there is ourselves. There is what is. But "what is" is not static or defined and is as flowing water. And how can one possibly  "know" flowing water? One cannot. We can only become as flowing water ourselves. Does flowing water "know itself"? I don't think so; it can only be itself, even though it has no solid form, no "self" as such, but only an appearance of self, of form. I think this is how it is, how we "are." Why do I think that? Because I know there is the wind blowing the trees outside my windown and I cannot see it but know it is present as it is. Because I know the ocean, just a mile away, undulates, ebbs, and flows; I can hear the crashing surf as well. Sometimes I am very aware that I am alive within this aging flesh and making motions through this body, knowing it is temporary, an important phase, holding many clues from which something is to be learned, gleaned, realized, applied. 

My focus, my thoughts, for most of my life, have been as they are now. I watch leaves fall from trees now with much the same wonder as I did as a baby from my carriage. This is "seeing yourself through." But to be able to wonder as a child wonders is to allow oneself to be devastated by reality, by what is. For all we do is constantly and perpetually build up a version of being in the world that insulates us enough that we can live with it. There are always "final straws" that break our backs, as it were, but after picking up the pieces, we reestablish and rebuild our "self-realities" once again that we might once again be "functional" in a dysfunctional existence. None of this is "good" or "bad"; it is just the way it is, until, of course, it isn't. I would love to digress into wonderfully poetic metaphors but will restrain myself.